Child Support Agency (CSA) Reform: 5 things that need to happen

Family law in Australia is costing lives and causing irreparable damage to children’s lives. Non-custodial parents are suiciding. We need to take this seriously – and we need to push for change.

Let me preface these five points by saying the crucial starting point of this conversation is “financial abortion”. Yes, men should be able to opt out of parenthood.

Having sex is neither consent to nor expression of a desire to become a parent. A man having sex is not consenting to supporting a child until that child turns 18.

Yes, it is a woman’s body and ultimately her “right” to choose and opt in. But, if she chooses to keep a baby, the man should also have a right to opt out.

Financial abortion is also known as a paper abortion or statutory abort. It enables a man to cut financial and emotional ties in the early stages of pregnancy.

Currently, in Australia the biological father is legally required to pay child support to the age of 18. The world’s moved on - that needs to change.

With specific regard to the Child Support Agency (CSA):

Feminist control can take a looong hike. The CSA is currently a man-hating hive of buzzing, angry bees driving a feminist agenda. Goodbye to you. It is not always the case that a child “should be” with its mother. There are plenty of instances where a child would be better off, healthier and happier with the father. It should not be automatically presumed the mother gets custody. In times gone by women specialised in raising children, that’s now shifted (google: feminism) and men aren’t presumed to be providers, equality therefore says fathers make equally good parents as mothers.

Each case financially assessed. Yes, I can hear sighs already from those saying this will only slow the process down. Guess what? It’s got to happen. See point 3 for how we save time. Financial circumstances of both parents need to be proven and assessed. If a partner remarries, that has to be taken into consideration too. No more taking one party’s word on its merit or it simply being a battle for who gets to court first. Each case on it’s own merit. The increasingly high divorce rate means people don’t only go through this cycle once. They should not be financially ruined.

Court ordered access means access. Unless there is justifiable and proven reason that a child’s safety is at risk, a parent paying child support should automatically be given access; court ordered and enforced, not a quick skype chat. If a non-custodial parent is refused access, they should be given unrestricted access to legal aid. If they continue to be refused access, child support payments stop as soon as they have submitted proof. Alienated the father? Guess what, your gravy train stops. This would also save a huge amount of court time, which is currently absorbed by mother’s not adhering to court orders. Right now, there is no incentive to do the right thing - make that a financial incentive and ta-da.

Remove Gillard’s un-handywork. Of course, the above will only work if we send Gillard’s no perjury in the Family Court on a hike with the aforementioned feminists. A child has two parents; it is not up to a father to prove why he should be able to see his children anymore than it is up to a mother. That is called equality. A liar is a liar no matter whether they’re sitting in a park or a courtroom. You lie in court? Go to jail. You have mental health issues? The court must be told.

Shared care is child support. Expecting non-custodial parents to pay child support and shared care is a total scam. While a child resides with the non-custodial parent, they should provide for that child. Once. Not twice.